Papua New Guinea Trade Union Congress

06/06/2026

𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗧𝗘 𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗦𝗨𝗦 𝗚𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗡𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧

There is a growing perception that the current Government has begun to treat the State as though it is an extension of the Government itself.

In a constitutional democracy, the relationship should be the exact opposite: 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.

To put this into perspective, consider a simple analogy.

The State is the ship, while the Government is the crew entrusted to sail it. Crews come and go, but the ship remains. The only time the ship is endangered is when the crew neglects its responsibilities and runs it aground on a reef or onto the rocks.

𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 exists to ensure that the crew remains accountable while navigating the ship. It provides the 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗸𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 necessary to keep the vessel on course, safeguard its cargo, and ensure it reaches its destination safely, efficiently, and in the interests of all who depend upon it.

The Constitution is the blueprint of the ship. It defines its structure, purpose, and operating principles. It also allocates powers and responsibilities to those entrusted with managing it. These powers are not granted for the benefit of the crew itself but are exercised on behalf of the people, from whom all legitimate authority ultimately derives.

In Papua New Guinea, 𝘀𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻𝘁𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲. The State and the Government derive their authority from the Constitution and are bound by its provisions. The 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 is therefore 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲; it is merely the temporary custodian of powers entrusted to it by the people through constitutional processes.

When the distinction between the State and the Government becomes blurred, the risks are significant. Public institutions can become politicised, independent offices weakened, Parliament reduced to a rubber stamp, and constitutional safeguards eroded. Over time, loyalty shifts from the Constitution and the State to the Government of the day, undermining the very foundations of democratic governance.

The 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. Governments will change through elections and constitutional processes, but the State must remain impartial, resilient, and faithful to the Constitution.

The moment a Government begins to regard itself as synonymous with the State, democratic accountability is weakened and constitutional governance is placed at risk.

The challenge before Papua New Guinea today is not merely about who occupies political office. It is about preserving the constitutional principle that the 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲, and that both remain accountable to the people, who are the true owners of the ship.

02/06/2026

The Papua New Banks & Financial Institutions Workers Union (PNGBFIWU) take pride in announcing it's affiliation to the UNI Global Union as at June 1 2026.

31/05/2026

𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵 𝗕𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘀, 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘀?

Year after year, Papua New Guineans are told that record amounts have been allocated to the health sector. Yet the recent exposure of conditions at the Port Moresby General Hospital has once again laid bare the reality experienced daily by ordinary citizens.

What the international community and development partners witnessed is not new. It is the lived experience of Papua New Guineans who have endured overcrowded wards, shortages of medicines, inadequate medical equipment, and a health system struggling to meet basic needs.

The people of Papua New Guinea are entitled to ask a simple but fundamental question of the Prime Minister, the Health Minister, the National Executive Council, and the bureaucratic leadership of the health sector:

"𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗮 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵 𝗴𝗼𝗻𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁?"

Accountability cannot be replaced by budget announcements, media releases, or political assurances. Citizens deserve transparency on how public funds are spent and measurable improvements in service delivery.

It is particularly disturbing that many political leaders and senior officials routinely seek medical treatment in Australia, Singapore, Manila, and other countries while expecting ordinary Papua New Guineans to rely on a domestic health system that they themselves appear unwilling to trust.

This raises an important question: 𝗶𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗶𝘁, 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲?

Perhaps the time has come for Parliament to seriously consider legislation requiring elected leaders and senior public officials to utilize public health services in Papua New Guinea except in exceptional circumstances where specialist treatment is unavailable in-country. Such a measure would ensure that those making decisions about health funding experience firsthand the consequences of their decisions and mismanagement or corruption, if any.

𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝘃𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁.

Papua New Guinea cannot continue to celebrate record health budgets while hospitals struggle, healthcare workers are overburdened, and citizens suffer preventable illness and death. "𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗳𝗶𝗴𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀; 𝗶𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗮 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘀".

The call today is not merely for increased funding. It is for transparency, accountability, competent management, and a commitment by leaders to stand alongside the people they serve.

Only then will Papua New Guinea begin to see the genuine transformation of its health services that its citizens have long been promised.

AGS PNGTUC

Caption - the statement by this concerned citizen holds water and deserve backing.

14/05/2026

𝗣𝗡𝗚 𝗚𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗡𝗔𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗦𝗜𝗦.

𝗣𝗮𝗽𝘂𝗮 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗚𝘂𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗮 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝗮 𝗱𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱𝘀.

The growing concentration of power within the National Executive Council (NEC), headed by Prime Minister James Marape, is raising serious national concerns about the erosion of the doctrine of separation of powers upon which our democracy was built.

The NEC already exercises enormous delegated authority — including the appointment of Ministers, heads of state agencies and senior constitutional office holders. But when such powers begin to overshadow the independence of Parliament, the Public Service and even the Judiciary, then democracy itself comes under threat.

Parliament is increasingly perceived by ordinary Papua New Guineans as a rubber stamp, rather than an independent arm of government capable of holding the Executive accountable.

More alarming is the emerging perception that even the Judiciary is being placed under immense pressure in ways that could undermine public confidence in justice and constitutional independence.

This raises a fundamental national question:

Is the principle of separation of powers now being quietly consolidated under the NEC? And for what purpose?

Whether direct or indirect, explicit or implicit, the use of appointment powers to influence institutions, reward loyalty, silence dissent, pursue political agendas or shield individuals from accountability moves dangerously close to authoritarianism. No democracy can survive when checks and balances become weakened by fear, dependence or political patronage.

Equally concerning is the growing perception of regional imbalance in the appointment of individuals into key constitutional and state decision-making offices.

Papua New Guinea is a nation of hundreds of tribes, languages and cultures. National unity cannot be sustained if citizens begin to believe that state power and strategic offices are concentrated within one political network or regional bloc.

Such perceptions — whether real or perceived — are dangerous in a fragile democracy and risk pushing the country toward deeper political distrust and national fragmentation.

At the same time, the country is now less than ten months away from the 2027 National General Elections, yet public confidence in electoral preparedness remains weak.

Concerns surrounding the integrity, administration and eventual outcomes of the elections are already dominating public discussion across the country.

“Every man and his dog already knows what to expect,” many citizens say with frustration and hopelessness.

That sentiment alone should alarm every responsible leader.

When viewed alongside Papua New Guinea’s grey-listing challenges, weakening institutions and growing public distrust, the implications for investor confidence, governance credibility and national stability become even more serious.

This is no longer a matter for quiet political gossip. It is now a national conversation.

Political leaders, civil society, churches, constitutional offices and citizens alike must confront these issues now — not after the damage is done and the storm has passed.

To the leaders of this nation:

If you have ears to hear — listen.

If you have eyes to see — do not remain ignorant.

Fix it now, before the country reaches a point where rebuilding trust in democracy becomes far harder than protecting it today.

08/05/2026

The journey to awaken national consciousness has begun. Champion AndaPanga!

#

04/05/2026

𝗘𝗡𝗦𝗨𝗥𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗜𝗡𝗩𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗗𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗦 𝗗𝗜𝗚𝗡𝗜𝗧𝗬, 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗝𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗙𝗜𝗧𝗦.

Papua New Guinea is a land of abundance—rich in natural resources that power economies across the globe. As our Prime Minister engages international partners, including investors from China’s Guangzhou Province, the message must be clear:
"𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗣𝗡𝗚 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘂𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗳𝘁 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺".

Foreign investment is welcome. But it must come with responsibility.

Too often, experiences across sectors—from large-scale resource projects like Ramu Nickel mine to major infrastructure construction, wholesale, and retail—have shown that worker welfare, wages, and conditions fall below acceptable standards from Chinese owned investments.

Jobs created must go beyond survival; they must provide dignity, security, and the opportunity for real economic mobility.

Papua New Guinea faces a genuine skills gap. This is precisely why foreign investment must play a transformative role—not just extracting value, but building it. Skills transfer cannot remain a talking point; it must be a mandatory condition of work permits and investment approvals, backed by strict monitoring and enforcement.

We must insist on:

1.Structured training and upskilling programs for local workers.

2.Clear pathways for Papua New Guineans into skilled and supervisory roles; and,

3.Compliance audits tied to continued operation licenses.

Equally important, the democratic rights of our citizens must be respected without compromise. Workers must retain their right to organize, to associate freely, and to engage in collective bargaining. These are not optional privileges—they are fundamental rights.

It will be a responsible thing for PM Marape make absolutely clear: "𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗼𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱".

Sounds like a tall order but not a barrier to investment. Rather, it is a standard of partnership. Respect for workers is respect for the nation.

Papua New Guinea must not seek investors who come only to take. Instead, we must seek partners who are prepared to build, to transfer knowledge, and to leave a legacy of empowered people.

Anton P Sekum
A/General Secretary PNGTUC
30/04/2026

*******************************

Experts welcome Chinese investment, but stress environmental and social safeguards are necessary.

19/04/2026

Development is not just about roads, energy, or infrastructure. It is also about what we choose to measure — and what we ignore.

Across the world, and here in our own communities, women carry the weight of unpaid domestic work — cooking, cleaning, caregiving, sustaining families.

📊 Data tells us:

* Women spend significantly more time in unpaid labor than men
* This limits their access to paid work, education, and leadership
* Yet this work sustains the very foundation of our economies

True development must recognize, measure, and respond to the invisible labor of women.

That’s why as Labour Minister, I commissioned PNG’s first ever labour force survey (LFS). And secured Government funding K24 million. The work is now undertaken by National Statistics Office (NSO) & DLIR.

📸: 3 generations

14/04/2026

𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗦 𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧

𝗣𝗡𝗚 𝗗𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗿𝘂𝗶𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗦𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗹 – 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗹𝗲𝗯𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗿𝗿𝘂𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

Papua New Guinea now stands at a critical crossroads.

The politicization of the PNG Defense Force recruitment debacle risks eroding public trust in one of the nation’s most respected institutions.

At a time when transparency and accountability are paramount, the focus must not be diverted toward silencing those who have had the courage to speak out.

The soldiers who exposed this recruitment rort are not criminals — they are whistleblowers. They acted not with weapons, but with integrity, in defense of the very nation they swore to protect. These men and women deserve protection, not persecution.

The PNGDF hierarchy must not bow to political pressure. Its primary duty is to uphold the integrity, welfare, and protection of all serving personnel. These officers took an oath to defend Papua New Guinea — not to serve political interests.

Any premature punitive action against the four soldiers allegedly implicated, before a full and transparent investigation is completed and its findings made public, raises serious concerns. Such actions risk creating suspicion, undermining due process, and fueling unnecessary public tension.

This matter is highly sensitive and must be treated as such.

The absence of publicly disclosed Terms of Reference for the government’s investigation only deepens uncertainty and invites speculation. Transparency is not optional — it is essential.

The PNG Trade Union Congress stands firm in its position: these soldiers must be protected. They have demonstrated courage and honesty in exposing potential wrongdoing, and in doing so, have acted in the national interest.

𝙋𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙡𝙚𝙗𝙡𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙨 𝙖 𝙙𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙨 𝙢𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙖𝙜𝙚 — 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 𝙞𝙨 𝙖 𝙡𝙞𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙘𝙤𝙧𝙧𝙪𝙥𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙨 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙚𝙙.

As the peak body representing workers across this country, we reaffirm our unwavering commitment to defend the rights, livelihoods, and dignity of all workers, including members of the disciplined forces. These soldiers are not just servicemen and women — they are workers, parents, and citizens.

Protect them, to protect the nation.

Let the investigations proceed independently, transparently, and without interference. Until then, these soldiers must be left alone.

𝙅𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙚 𝙢𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙗𝙚 𝙙𝙤𝙣𝙚 — 𝙞𝙩 𝙢𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙗𝙚 𝙨𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙚 𝙙𝙤𝙣𝙚..

Clemence Kanau
General Secretary - PNGTUC

14/04/2026 - 11.08pm.

03/02/2026

𝗖𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗺, 𝗗𝗲𝗳𝗮𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘆.

In a democratic society, the relationship between citizens and those who hold public office is not one of equals. Leaders wield power, authority, and influence on behalf of the people. Citizens, on the other hand, retain only one enduring counterweight to that power: their voice.

When a leader takes personal offence and reacts strongly to insulting or allegedly defamatory remarks made by an individual citizen, the issue is no longer just about language. It becomes a test of leadership temperament, democratic maturity, and respect for constitutional freedoms.

Public office inevitably attracts criticism—some fair, some unfair, some harsh, and some poorly expressed. This is not an accident of democracy; it is its design.

Leaders are human, yes, but once entrusted with public power, they are expected to tolerate a higher threshold of scrutiny and criticism than ordinary citizens. This expectation is neither cruel nor unreasonable; it is the price of authority.

In democratic systems, Courts have repeatedly affirmed that freedom of expression is at its strongest where speech concerns public officials and matters of public interest. The reason is simple: open criticism keeps power accountable. To suppress or criminalise political criticism—especially when it comes from ordinary citizens—risks chilling public debate and weakening democratic culture.

That said, freedom of expression is not without limits. False statements of fact that maliciously damage reputation may amount to defamation. Threats, incitement to violence, and deliberate lies fall outside the protection of democratic speech. However, even where such limits exist, the response of a leader must be measured, proportionate, and restrained.

A confident leader responds to criticism with facts, clarification, or silence—not intimidation. A mature democracy prefers civil remedies over criminal punishment. The use of state institutions—police, prosecutors, or regulatory bodies—to pursue personal grievances sends a troubling signal: that public power is being used to protect ego rather than the public interest.

Equally, citizens bear a civic responsibility. While the law may protect sharp, offensive, or emotional speech, democratic discourse is strengthened when criticism is reasoned, factual, and focused on issues rather than personal abuse. Respectful language elevates debate, but respect cannot be enforced through fear.

Ultimately, the strength of a democracy is measured not by how leaders respond to praise, but by how they respond to criticism.

Leaders who tolerate dissent demonstrate confidence in their mandate. Leaders who seek to silence critics reveal insecurity in their authority.

In a free society, speech must never fear power more than power fears scrutiny. That balance is essential—not for leaders, but for democracy itself.